Waterford peace activist in bid to overturn conviction for trespassing at Shannon Airport

A PEACE activist who trespassed on a taxiway at Shannon Airport has appealed his conviction, saying he believed he had to "agitate the issue" to stop what he believed was the "irreparable evil" of ammunition being brought through Ireland.

Civil servant Dan Dowling and a co-accused - retired Irish soldier Edward Horgan -  had pleaded not guilty to causing criminal damage to a plane and entering the curtilage of Shannon Airport as trespassers with the intention to damage property on April 25, 2017.

It was alleged during the trial that the two men gained access to a taxiway at Shannon Airport and were involved in writing: “Danger, danger, don't fly” on American naval planes using markers, after ignoring a request made by Irish Defence Force personnel to stop.

Dowling, aged 41, of Grace Dieu, County Waterford and Horgan, aged 80, of Newtown, Castletroy, Limerick were acquitted of the criminal damage charges but found guilty of trespass at the airport.

Judge Martina Baxter ordered the two men to pay €5,000 to a women’s refuge in County Clare.

During their ten-day trial at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court, Dowling and Horgan told a jury that the acts had been carried out from an honestly-held belief that they were necessary to protect others.

READ ALSO: Waterford business wins silver-gilt medal at Bloom 2025

Appealing Dowling’s conviction at the Court of Appeal, defence senior counsel Mark Lynam argued that the defence of necessity arose in this case as a result of the transport of ammunition through Shannon and the fact that this was an ongoing concern.  

He said the defence of necessity arises where an accused person deems it necessary to choose the outlawed wrong, either to avoid a greater evil or to fulfil a human duty.

“It’s a question of: ‘If I don’t do this thing, will the irreparable evil take place?’” he said during Friday's hearing.

He pointed to the evidence given by Dowling’s co-accused, who said they were seeking to prevent the deaths of children in the Middle East.

Counsel said his client’s state of mind was evidenced by what he said on the tarmac in relation to there being prisoners and weapons on the plane and his assertion that the aircraft should be searched.

“You can say drawing on the plane or searching the plane isn’t going to stop the war in the Middle East; that may be so,” he said. However, counsel added that to stop something like a transit through Shannon by another government’s military, it was necessary to “agitate the issue”.

He submitted that the trial judge’s failure to give an appropriate direction on the defence of necessity was a “fundamental injustice in the case”.

Mr Lynam noted that Dowling did not have legal representation in the trial and had represented himself.

Jane McCudden BL, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, argued that Dowling had not advanced a general defence of necessity. She said even if it had been raised, it would not have been applicable because there was insufficient evidence to ground it.

“The trial judge in this case cannot be criticised for not reading into or formulating a defence that was not there.”

Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the court would reserve judgement.